Since Measure F was passed in March, its oversight committee has disagreed with the SJUSD about how the $429 million school bond should be spent.

Many of the 13 committee members say they have refused to endorse several projects because they believe the school district is trying to take advantage of the vagueness of the ballot language to fund new programs instead of renovating current school facilities as the ballot promised.

"The fundamental issue is the disagreement on how the ballot language matches the projects that are proposed by the school district," said Charles Tate, chairman of the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, during the committee's third monthly meeting on Sept. 16.

School district representatives have said that all the projects it has proposed to the committee conform with the ballot and that most projects are still unspecified now because it takes time to conduct a more detailed assessment.

"For example, although the item of 'repair/upgrade of facilities for specialized instructional programs' appears in all middle and high schools, the district will need to work with the faculty and the community to identify specific projects to enhance its specialized instructional program," said Jerry Matranga, associate superintendent of administrative services.

Matranga attributed the tension between the school district and the oversight committee to the committee's desire to define the ballot.

"I know the committee wants to do a wonderful job but its job is to make sure the projects match the ballot language, not to interpret what the ballot says," Matrranga added.

The district will spend the next nine months creating a detailed implementation plan—listing the exact scope, budget and schedule for each project—for the committee to review.

"We are not in a hurry," said Ty Williams, manager of the school district's facilities and constructions. "We would rather do things right than do things fast. This is a 12-year construction plan, after all."

In addition to different interpretations of the ballot language, the oversight committee disagrees with the school district on how to prioritize projects.

One of the projects the school district wanted to put on the fast track but failed to get the committee's support for was a preschool education initiative that would provide early care and education for children below age 5 in the district.

"The district is supposed to focus on K­12 education," said committee member C.C. Su.

Other committee members argued that new programs should not be funded by Measure F.

"My understanding is that Measure F should be used to renovate and repair the schools, not to create new programs," said committee member Jill Escher.

Superintendent Dr. Linda Murray countered that preschool education is not a new project and should qualify to be included in Measure F because the term "preschool education" does appear in the ballot. She also emphasized that improving preschool education is a core element of the district's mission.

"We have found a huge disparity between students who get quality preschool education and those who don't," Murray said. "We need to bridge the gap before it widens."

The superintendent's explanations didn't convince the committee, which has asked the district to provide a more detailed report at its next meeting, scheduled for Oct. 21.

Despite their disagreements, the school district staff and the committee members say this is a learning experience for both parties.

"I learn a lot about how the school district works," said committee member Helen Solinski, who also serves on the board of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association. "I think we are making good progress."